TV’s Second Screen: Connected or Disconnected?

Major networks are gearing up for fall premieres that are just around the corner. Guys eagerly anticipate the start of the NFL football season and women eagerly await the premiere of their favorite sitcom’s new season. Ah yes, fall programming is in the air, and second screens are in viewers hands. For better or worse, the new reality of TV viewing seems to be with smartphone or iPad in hand. Connected TV, as they call it, has a couple of categories, one of which is the device or devices the viewer engages with while watching shows. The second is the device used to watch connected TV.

Kit Eaton discusses the first one, referencing the trend to watch TV with smartphone or iPad in hand
http://bit.ly/OeRwOS
. He cites a Pew survey of 2,200 US adults showing 52% of adult cell phone users incorporate their cell phone into their TV viewing habits. What does this mean? Well the statistics of the survey showed that 6% voted for a reality show result in the last 30 days, 11% checked to see what people online were saying about the show they were viewing, 11% commented online about what they were watching, 22% checked to see if something on TV was true and 23% texted someone they knew watching the same show elsewhere. 20% visited a website they saw on TV and 38% amused themselves with their phone during commercial breaks. As for the iPad, a January 2011 survey shows iPad usage corresponding with prime-time TV slots. Although these show interest gaining, it’s a slow gain, as connected TV is in its infancy. Case in point, these are not high percentages. Yet, connected viewers are connected viewers and its all got to start somewhere.

eMarketer’s article explores the second part of the equation: connected TVs
http://bit.ly/OeRJSf
. Popular consoles being Nintendo’s Wii, Sony’s PlayStation 3 and Microsoft’s Xbox 360. According to DFC Intelligence, 24 million North American households own a connected TV. In general, viewers have positively engaged with video ads on their connected TV’s. 38% visited a website mentioned in a connected TV ad, 36% considered purchasing a product or service mentioned in a connected TV ad, and 34% went on to look for a mentioned product in a store or online. Also, a survey by Tremor Video had consumers stating they watched 12 hours through their connected device per week. Although these statistics show more promise than the last set, they still leave something to be desired. A study by Adap.tv and DIGIDAY indicate that interest in connected TV by advertisers grew slowly between 2010 and 2012. Now nearly a third of advertisers support the channel, but maybe they’re right to be cautious. Robert Andrews reports, via a Deloitte UK survey of 2,000 people, that nearly half of 16-24-year-olds use email and social networks but only 1 in 10 second-screeners actually browse the Internet for information about shows they’re watching
http://bit.ly/OhPITS
. It may be smart for them not to jump the gun too quickly. However, this kind of viewing is deemed distractive viewing and there’s also a movement towards extensions of viewing like TV Guide’s Watchlist app
http://bit.ly/SCVWUn
.

If anything, it’s advantage is that TV Guide’s already established as something you use while watching TV. Their app is simply a digital extension of what they’re already known for, making it a natural transition for a second-screen viewer. Watchlist includes “New Tonight Trending,” a social hot list based on what TV Guide users are watching, as well as offering better filtering features, social check-ins, video search and more. The app itself allows you to add your shows to a list, and tells you what’s new on TV, OnDemand, Streaming and on DVD with each show. It also shows you how many people are watching them in a screen where you can set reminders that let you know your show is starting. Watchlist definitely makes a good companion to the TV viewing experience if nothing else, and holds the advantage of being something people are already used to using when watching TV. But which will win out? Companion apps or engagement on smartphones and iPads? Will viewers grow more connected, or disconnected? All interesting questions that will be answered in due time. There’s still a lot of speculation and trial and error where connected TV is concerned. The verdict? Connected TV is something to keep an eye on, but don’t get too excited yet.

Foursquare Gets More Interactive

Recent moves by the location-based social network Foursquare have made it an interactive destination and hub of activity. Launched as a service allowing users to see their friends’ whereabouts and check-in at locations they visit, with the most frequent visitors earning ‘mayor’ status, Foursquare has gained lots of data about its users. Everything from gender to visitation frequency and time of day has been documented simply by users interacting with Foursquare, and this makes perfect targeting data for its new developments.

First up is Foursquare’s “local updates”, a free service launched within the last few weeks
http://bit.ly/OgiPKq
. This tool allows businesses to place updates, specials and events directly into the activity streams of a pool of users chosen by Foursquare’s algorithm, which is based on frequency and recency of check-ins and businesses those users have ”liked” (the last made possible by Foursquare’s recent remodel). Basically it targets those who visit and spend money at your store the most, a type of targeting every business wants to have. Users only see updates when in the same city or general area as the business, and the closest location (of a brand with multiple locations) will be the message originator. Keeping users engaged and boosting local business are the main priorities here. Keeping business owners engaged on top of that is a bonus.

Foursquare’s newest, and most exciting initiative, is it’s “promoted updates”, which uses its “Explore” app, a recommendation service for users
http://bit.ly/N7Z2cn
. When the app is launched promoted updates from nearby businesses in the area appear, but only similar businesses to ones they’ve visited, liked, interacted with or that their friends have interacted with at some point. Good for business and business owners, as they can select the locations they want to promote and schedule updates. However, they must trust Foursquare do the targeting. Promoted ads also feature a way to attach a message, a space for special deals and promotions, and last for several months
http://dthin.gs/QslnIg
. A big plus. Why else is this a win-win for Foursquare? It builds upon their current model, in that users already turn to Foursquare for nearby places and activities happening, and it gives business owners more options and control while paying on a cost-per-action model.

Although Foursquare is anything but traditional, it also strengthens traditional advertising and boasts tie-in opportunities
http://bit.ly/NFeIZA
. For instance, “The Great Baltimore Check-in”, a contest-based geo-social game launched by Foursquare in partnership with Urbanite magazine and WTMD radio. Drawing 1,500 participants last year, the game involves Foursquare users who’ve registered online to play racing to meet the challenge to check-in at 89 different commercial and public landmark locations. A three-month long contest, July – September, the one with the most check-ins at the end wins a 2012 Vespa scooter while 2nd place wins a new Fender guitar. Yet again, something that works out in everyone’s best interests and then some. Participants utilize Foursquare and populate local businesses as part of the game, increasing business. Businesses gain exposure and a boost to business, as well as plugs in print, radio and online (which themselves gain from the marriage of traditional and non-traditional media). Why is this contest not something every city is doing? This should be a nationwide event.

All of these new ventures show that Foursquare is raising the bar on what it means to be interactive. They’re more interactive with users via the “local updates” service, they’re more interactive with businesses via “promoted updates” and they bolster traditional media through their ability to join forces for package promotions. Foursquare is proving its status as an innovator, and serving up a challenge at the same time. In making the leap and expanding their basic services like this, they show themselves to be versatile and ahead of the game. For others looking to contend? I wish you luck.

The Best Present? More Customers

Christmas is coming. You’ve baked cookies, decked the halls and stressed endlessly over getting the best present for everyone. Now it’s time to give yourself the best present of all, and that is more customers. This is the time of year where you have numerous opportunities to capture email opt-ins for email marketing campaigns. MediaPost’s Loren McDonald stresses the importance of addressing five key areas: website, transactional email messages, social presence, in-store locations/mobile opt-ins/direct mail, and regular promotional emails
http://bit.ly/vyVhWe
.

1) Website: McDonald’s main point here is that there should be an email sign-up on every page of your website.

2) Transactional Email Messages: Transactional emails aren’t just for informing your customer about their order anymore, but McDonald states the transaction should still be the most prominent piece on the page. Whatever messages you send, each should offer an opt-in.

3) Social Presence: Customers should also be able to access your opt-in on more than just your webpage. McDonald advises to create a Facebook email tab and opt-in form, highlight it on your Twitter profile page, highlight the value of your email program via tweets and Facebook newsfeed often, and use social sign-ins like Facebook Connect to capture email addresses and other data points.

4)In-Store/Mobile Opt-Ins/Direct Mail: POS tactics aren’t enough, creating a streamlined registration page makes your program more mobile friendly and appeals to a wider variety of people. According to McDonald, this involves QR codes that link to the registration page, promoting SMS to email opt-ins on POS signs or receipts, if emailing receipts offer opt-ins there, create in-store, POS tablets or kiosks for email address entry, train call-center reps to capture them, use Foursquare, and use opt-in cards at POS.

5) Regular Promotional Emails: A more visible “subscribe” button, more prominent forward-to-a-friend and share-to-social links and standalone email messages designed to be forwarded or shared in social networks.

More email opt-ins bring you more customers, but how exactly do they do that? One word? Content. In order to be persuasive and engage customers you must have content that connects and resonates with customers. One trend, according to E.B. Boyd, involves brands becoming more human and adopting more human qualities
http://bit.ly/s15JeZ
. It’s about projecting relatable qualities like kindness, honesty and humor through all channels and brands like Pepsi and Patagonia are two examples. Pepsi launched Refresh Project last year, in lieu of Super Bowl ad spending, and Patagonia lets companies see the environmental impact of their garments on its website. Adopting a more human tone makes you seem more like a friend and less like a corporate drone, making people more likely to embrace your brand and support it.

Another tactic involves appealing to the intricacies of the human decision-making process. Michael Lewis touches on cognitive psychology concepts like the availability heuristic and the conjunction fallacy
http://vnty.fr/tYbBwZ
. Humans have these natural tendencies in their thinking process and they can be targeted through content creation. Lewis cites Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky’s availability heuristic, which states people assess the probability of an event by asking whether relevant examples are cognitively “available” (easily remembered). Essentially if you can inject something that is easily remembered, or memorable, into your message than you will have a large following. Their second principle, the conjunction fallacy, focuses on the human mind’s tendency to be drawn to stereotypes and vivid descriptions over relevant facts. Not that relevant facts shouldn’t be included, but it can’t hurt to be overly descriptive as well. The better people can visualize, the more accessible your brand is to them.

At this time of year, when goodwill and humanity reign, people are looking for those they identify with and who speak to them. Using this combination of tactics is the best way to stand out and gain their trust and repeat business. They always say the best things come in small packages, but some of the best things come in something much more. Sometimes words and actions speak the loudest of all.

Facebook: Digital Customer Service

Lots of studies have been done about how consumers interact with Facebook. The results can be read one of two ways, marketers gain customers and increase customer interaction on Facebook or marketers strengthen their ties with existing customers on Facebook. The reality is more like the second view. It’s easy to see why a lot of marketers read the situation more like the first scenario though, take for example a study looking at ”How Consumers Interact With Brands on Facebook”
http://on.mash.to/o17dJb
.

It touches on both sides, and it explains why marketers look at Facebook so positively and are satisfied with any type of interaction they can get on Facebook. Constant Contact and research firm Chadwick Martin Bailey report on ‘encouraging stats for business owners’ including that 56% who become fans are more likely to recommend a brand to a friend, 51% are more likely to buy a product after becoming a fan and 78% of consumers who ‘like’ brands like less than 10 brands. 76% have never unliked a brand. Here are my thoughts. The phrase ‘more likely’ tells me nothing exact about how often consumers actually act on these tendencies. Most likely, consumers like more than 10 brands and only feel compelled to list ones they like most. It also doesn’t guarantee that customers are any more particular or any more loyal to a brand. 76% have never unliked a brand. Well, that’s good except some still have so it’s still a possible outcome. I have no doubt that Facebook has potential, I just think that people are quick to jump to conclusions and read more into its progress than there is. A few points here echo ones from ”Why Do People Follow Brands on Facebook?”
http://on.mash.to/jDNWiX
.

CRM  specialists Get Satisfaction found many consumers are just in it for the perks or because they’re already customers. The study goes on to showcase these statistics through a series of graphs. One attempts to measure how often people consider the brand when shopping, buy the brand and recommend the brand to others. On a scale of Never, Sometimes, Usually and Always, the majority response for all is ‘usually’, but usually doesn’t tell us exactly how often. All of these are indirect forms of measurement that provide few concrete numbers. Without concrete numbers, any opinion of the results of brand marketing on Facebook is purely speculation. There is still much to come in developing Facebook measurement methods to determine true ROI. “How Consumers Interact With Brands on Facebook” even points out that Facebook interaction is fairly passive, with 77% reading posts and updates from brands, 17% sharing experiences and news stories about the brand and 13% posting updates about the brands they like. None of the interactions they measure are about purchasing the product and only 30% share experiences and news stories or post updates about brands they like. That doesn’t say much for Facebook’s brand interaction so far. What it does say though, is that Facebook is an excellent tool for customer communication.

I think Justin Kistner of Webtrends put it best in “How Brands Should Think About Facebook: A Loyalty Program”
http://bit.ly/qyHhYP
. In response to the fact that most fans are existing customers, Kistner states it makes Facebook “…more like a customer relationship management program than a customer acquisition tool.” He goes on to say “Search is a customer acquisition tool. Facebook really isn’t….(Facebook) is really about staying in touch with the people we know” and “more about preaching to the converted than getting new converts.” All of these statements point to what Facebook really is in this moment, a form of digital customer service. Until there are concrete facts and the connection between Facebook fan and product purchase becomes more of a direct and predictable correlation, that’s what a brands’ focus should be for Facebook. It’s the safest bet, and one whose results and dividends are much more measurable.

Google+, Still Minus the Plus

Google+ may have a plus sign attached to its name but it’s still missing crucial features that hold it back from taking the lead. There are many opinions on what Google+ is lacking, and for these purposes I’m comparing two of them: Launch blog’s The Google+ Punch List (21 Items Google Must Add to Plus) and 7 Facebook Features Google Plus Still Lacks. The first goes into an account of not only what the author (whose name I did not see or he would be mentioned here) sees as missing but what actual Google+ users would like to see. Meanwhile, the other list, by David Cohen, is more direct and concise. While these lists differ, there are certain points they both agree must be present. Perhaps the most obvious thing that Google+ is missing is a search feature. It’s one of the main ways a user can discover content, opinions and even reviews. Basically, search is part of the glue that would connect this network’s users. Google being the search engine giant it is, can it really afford not to integrate search into Google+? Sending Google+ users to Google to find answers is ridiculous. Both of them also agree that an Application Programming Interface (or API) is essential, but for different reasons. Launch blog points out the threat of hackers, while Cohen focuses on Google+’s compatibility with other applications, such as Foursquare. The fact that there is more than one reason Google+ needs an API says it all.

‘A birthday widget,’ as Launch blog calls it, and ‘events and birthdays,’ as Cohen calls it, are also seen as a necessary add. What they forget to mention is that this is another feature Google has but chooses not to integrate. As a former member of a college group that used Google Calendar, I know it exists and that it allows people to plug their schedules in and share them with other people. This is where Google+ is making one of several big mistakes. Humans need reminders and a place to keep everything straight. Google Calendar is that feature and why it is not part of Google+ is a mystery to me. Brand pages are also a competitive feature Google+ still lacks. Google+ has a lot of unique opportunities for brands, but Facebook still leads because Google+’s brand pages are still in development. There is a place for brands on Google+ and the sooner they make space for them, and give them the kind of tools that Facebook does, the better. While they converge on these points, neither is a complete list of what Google+ is missing that Facebook already has and is doing better. Despite Google+’s lag, Facebook still feels the heat because it recently launched a small business service explaining how to utilize all of Facebook’s marketing tools (ads, deals, social plugins, sponsored stories, etc.)
http://on.mash.to/pRXzDY
. According to Digital Media’s Steven Musil, Facebook may not have much to fear after all, as they see Google+’s traffic dropping
http://cnet.co/na6cnX
. Perhaps this is just a lull, or perhaps it is indicative of Google+’s buzz leveling off for good. Whether Google+ could ever succeed in conquering Facebook, even with the additions mentioned above, remains to be seen. For now, Google+ might want to rethink that + at the end of its name.

For Twitter? A Slice of Facebook’s Pie

I have written about the competition between Google+ and Facebook, this is the next installment. Not only is Google+ going after Facebook but Twitter is too. You may remember that part of Facebook’s success that allowed it to beat out FriendFeed came from borrowing, more like appropriating, FriendFeed features. According to an older article by Steven Musil, Facebook made it so users could import YouTube, StumbleUpon, Pandora, Hula, Last.fm and Google Reader into the feed
http://cnet.co/7xs38t
. The article goes on to confirm that Facebook’s commenting system is similar to FriendFeed’s as well as the ‘Like’ button. Guess you really do have to trademark everything. It is not uncommon to hear of people copying features, it happens with or without patents and trademarks. It’s just online the rules seem a little more lax. Twitter is now coming for Facebook like Facebook came after FriendFeed. Perhaps not quite in the same manner, but their actions definitely speak for themselves. Facebook recently announced that it’s testing an update to its news feed to include space for third-party platform buttons
http://cnet.co/pkxfzw
. Here, gestures other than the ‘like’ button would allow users to more easily share information and content about products and services as well as see what their friends are commenting on and liking. This is an effort to draw more marketers and advertisers to the site. Facebook will have to be careful, because there is a line there to be crossed.  The same goes for Twitter who is launching a similar concept in its quest to best Facebook.

Twitter is also appealing to marketers and advertisers by tweaking its promoted tweets system to reach Twitter followers more directly
http://dthin.gs/pXaxtd
. However, their approach does not sound as intrusive as Facebook’s. Twitter has dubbed its new product ‘Promoted Tweets to Followers’ and its features involve brand ads in the form of promoted tweets showing up at the top of a user’s timeline the second they sign in to Twitter. Then they move down in the timeline like any other tweet, so as not to be a  permanent fixture.  This solves one of the old problems of promoted tweets because promoted tweets would happen and get buried without a lot of users seeing them. Twitter is also trying to one up Facebook by testing a new feature that operates a lot like a Facebook wall. Their version makes it easier to post on a Twitter user’s page, share content and chat
http://lat.ms/rtCVO8
. Now both of these Twitter moves directly challenge Facebook. Not only is Twitter recreating a Facebook wall, it’s using promoted tweets in a new way to counter Facebook’s expansion of the ‘like’ button. You almost half expect Facebook to roll out promoted status updates, but that would be too obvious. The dynamic here is two social media giants battling it out for all the glory. A little competition can be healthy, a whole lot can be deadly. Hopefully neither of them will go the way of MySpace as this plays out.  Each has a solid platform so this shouldn’t be an issue. Whether one wins, continually proving its superior status to the other, or not, both will stick around and endure as an example. It’s a fact of life that sometimes it’s necessary to do what Twitter is doing in order to prove you’re the best. To take someone’s idea and execute it better and in a more meaningful and useful way is a very compelling strategy. However, they have a lot to compete with when it comes to Facebook. Facebook is not to be underestimated. When it comes down to it, this is a game of wits. It’s obvious what Twitter wants, a piece of Facebook’s pie. Whether they will get it, or just be seen as a second-rate copycat, remains to be seen.

Is There Space for Myspace?

Myspace is probably the last social network anyone thinks of today, and that’s no big surprise since it is virtually dead. According to Sean Williams, these three things were what killed Myspace
http://on.msnbc.com/iDXkAM
.

1)Former owner News Corp did not understand Myspace’s user base: Rupert Murdoch and company may know a lot about running a newspaper or catering to a TV audience, but they sure didn’t know what to do with a social media site. It seems they were more concerned with revenue than listening to what users had to say. By the time they made an upgrade, it was too late.

2) Users had too much control: Unlike Facebook with its single platform/single page design model, Myspace gave its users access to extreme customization, which meant that each users’ page had a different design. This made the site hard to navigate and people lost interest. Giving users a few personalization options is ok, but giving them full control is going too far. When Myspace lost their cohesive image they also lost their cohesive identity.

3) Little or no barrier to entry: Myspace was quickly topped by other social media websites that arose. Part of the problem is that all it takes to own a social media website is starting capital. As the amount of social media sites exploded, Myspace became just another face in the crowd.

As of the past week, Andrew Khouri reports that Myspace has been sold to Specific Media’s Tim and Chris Vanderhook
http://lat.ms/qiZM22
. Internet banner selling sensations looking to grow their business into a digital media company producing web content and selling services to consumers, not just ads for businesses. Their goal is to revamp Myspace and turn it into a place to interact with celebrities and artists and view content produced exclusively for Myspace. Details are vague for now, with more information to come during a news conference later this summer. Although details are slim, one can speculate as to what it may resemble and look like. I see the new Myspace as one that is going back to its roots in a sense. Part of what drew a lot of traffic to Myspace was that it was a place for upcoming artists. I envision behind the scenes content, exclusive listening parties and perhaps exclusive recording sessions. Maybe even a release party. There are all kinds of ways they can capitalize on this type of model. Perhaps they will turn it into what Ping was never able to become. Ping was iTunes attempt at building a music-centered social media site within its own program. Its goal being that artists would join, fans would follow, and friends would buy music based on friend recommendations. Well, Ping didn’t have any zing and so it died.

Adam C. Engst discussed updates to iTunes back in September that aimed at making Ping more user-friendly while fixing bugs
http://bit.ly/o4EnlO
. However, a more recent article on July 14th about Apple’s iCloud talks about how Apple never understood how people interact on the web
http://bit.ly/nD7d3O
. Sounds familiar, kind of like News Corp. It goes on to state that after a lot of initial sign ups all Ping does is show what songs friends purchase, which is not exciting or interactive at all. So much for that idea. Whatever happens with Myspace, it can’t be as bad as Ping. The question is will it be something new and unique? Will it stand out? Will it be competitive with Google+, Twitter, and Facebook? Nobody has ever been able to resuscitate a dead website, but that is exactly what Specific Media’s Tim and Chris Vanderhook have set out to do. They even enlisted Justin Timberlake’s help. While I’m not sure if these efforts will be enough to save Myspace, there is definitely space for sites like this. Even the Vanderhook brothers see that digital networks are the next big thing. Hulu and YouTube’s increasing popularity are proof of this. Ultimately, there is space, but only time will tell if Myspace will be one of the sites to fill that space.

Foursquare: Another Social Network?

It seems that search engine giants, like Google, are not the only ones jumping into the social network arena. Foursquare, a location-based service, seems to be joining in the competition. First lets briefly define what categorizes something as a social networking website. Danah Boyd and Nicole Ellison define social networking sites as “web-based services that allow individuals to 1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system 2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and 3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others in the system”
http://bit.ly/e5MlA
. While this is by no means a complete definition it is a start. There are other features that commonly exist among social networking sites, thereby shaping the identity and definition of the term as well. Enough technical crap though, here are my thoughts and the signs I have seen that Foursquare is moving in this direction.

1) Perhaps the biggest indicator that Foursquare is becoming a social networking site is that it has given its iPhone app a newsfeed
http://on.mash.to/njBgV3
. The new ‘notification tray’ tracks more than your check-ins. It tracks comments on your check-ins, new comments on items you commented on, completion of your tips by friends and mayor status updates. Sound familiar? Facebook tracks comments on your status updates, sends you emails when others comment on statuses and photos you commented on, and displays game and status updates.

2)Foursquare is also now offering daily deals from sites like Groupon, Living Social, Gilt Groupe and others
http://on.mash.to/qfneWM
. Very similar to deals like those that are offered on Facebook and shared through Facebook and Twitter.

3)Foursquare is advancing into the realm of TV like Facebook and Twitter hashtags have before it. Take the recent Pepsi campaign for ‘Summer Time is Pepsi Time”
http://bit.ly/rkaLgm
. This commercial campaign that takes a jab at Coca-Cola also invites viewers to connect and interact by following Pepsi on Foursquare (a message displayed at the bottom of the screen during the commercial). This gets viewers involved in a game of check-ins at all of their summer fun destinations, earning them badges and, when they earn all three, entering them into a sweepstakes.

Based on these new additions, Foursquare is now a competitor. The question is, do Facebook, Twitter and Google+ have reason to fear? Well, take Google for example. At first its transformation into a social network was just a series of rumors. Critics had seen failed attempts from Google before and shrugged off any possibility of it ever becoming successful, much less competing with other social networks. As of July 11th, Google+ had 4.7 million users
http://bit.ly/n6q4cC
. Considering it launched on June 28th that’s a quick growth spurt that has undoubtedly increased a lot by now. I would not be so quick to shrug off Foursquare like people shrugged off Google. Foursquare may still be primarily a location service, but is increasingly moving towards becoming its own brand of social networking site. Whether others acknowledge that or not, Foursquare is showing it deserves some attention and that it may be a force to be reckoned with amongst the competition.

Facebook vs. Google+

As soon as Google rolled out their Google+1 button the rumors started about Google forming its own social network. Although they denied it at the time they were doing just that. Google+1 is its name and it has been up and running for just a week. In that time it has 88% male users (10% women and 2% who did not identify themselves), it has a ‘circles of sharing’ feature, it’s one of the top ten sites referring traffic back to Tech Crunch’s website and it has a popular group video feature called ‘Google+ Hangout’
http://yhoo.it/nmTnrX
. The issues so far with Google are that its audience does not allow for a lot of connection. Right now it’s predominately a male tech lover’s domain. This dampens the features that might put it in contention with Facebook once Google+’s user base expands. Here I must mention that the ‘circles of sharing’ feature made me immediately think of Meet the Parents Jack Byrnes and his circle of trust. That aside, Google’s ‘circles of sharing’ is the answer to Facebook’s group feature except users manually manage who is in which circle. Those who are in someone’s circle do not know which circle they are in, or probably that they even are, and do not know who else is in the same circle. People seem to like this feature but how can that kind of secrecy connect people? Not quite sure this makes sense yet, it may need some more work. By far the most popular feature is the Google+ Hangouts, a group chat feature that allows users to stream multiple video feeds into a single chatroom space and even share videos there. While this may be its one redeeming feature thus far, it all comes back to who’s on Google+ and the answer so far is not many. Overall, how does this compare to Facebook? Facebook already has everyone there, making it easier to add on features and apps to further build relationships between users. This is obviously problematic for Google+ as they do not measure up in this category yet.

As for Google+’s ‘circles of sharing,’ Mark Zuckerberg claims that users do not want to manually manage their own friends
http://read.bi/qRVImL
. He goes on to add that his definition of groups is that everyone who is in a group knows that everyone else is in that group. As far as the Google+ Hangout goes, Facebook launched its own new chat features on Wednesday. Their new chat design, group chat, and 1 to 1 video chat features improve Facebook and enhance its ability to connect people
http://bit.ly/oPExLg
. The new chat design improves usability by making Chat a sidebar so users can more easily browse while they chat. Also, you can limit availability on chat, making you appear available only to a certain group of people whenever you choose. Secondly, users can add people to their 1 to 1 conversation to make it a group chat. If any information previously discussed should not be seen by those joining it’s not a problem because those who join see a clean slate. Conversation for them begins when they enter and does not appear as a continuation of chat. Then there is Facebook’s video chat option. Eventually they plan to partner with Skype for added paid services with more features. Perhaps they’ll even add a group chat to compete with Google+. For now a video chat increases the means of interaction available. Google+, for its part, plans to roll out non-user (read brand or company) pages later this year that link them to AdWords
http://selnd.com/nB8m25
. For now though, Facebook reigns supreme with its fully functioning company and brand pages. Overall, Facebook still has the edge. Mainly because it was there first and is in a later stage of development. The audience is already there and they are simply building upon their foundation now. Google+ has a lot of catching up to do if it is going to compete. Sure it has plans and Google+ Hangouts, but is that going to be enough to bring and keep users there? Facebook has the upper hand because social is the only thing that they do. Google is search, ads, etc. in addition to being social. That is a lot to juggle. Facebook sticks to social and it’s what they do well. Based on this, and my previous points, I see Facebook leading this competition for a long time to come.

Social Media in Progress

There are interesting strides being made with social media, as companies seek to shape their own direction as well as influencing the direction and decisions of their users. Take Foursquare, for example, and its recent partnership with American Express
http://nyti.ms/iC5wx3
. Users that link these accounts will receive special deals at shops and restaurants they check in at. There are some definite upsides of this partnership, American Express reaching a younger demographic (Foursquare reaches the 35 and under crowd), American Express users spending more, and more people signing up for American Express cards. For Foursquare, the ROI is that this opens the door for other similar partnerships. This partnership came about through a pilot of the program run at South by Southwest music and technology conference. The results? On average, users in the program (card holders linked to Foursquare) spent 20% more than users not in the program (card users not linked to Foursquare). This definitely indicates more engagement, but what does that really mean? 20% of users spent more money on average. On average means that the majority spent more money, but not all did because the total was averaged out. Also, this was a small demographic and fails to account for other variables. Other variables would be customers own thoughts and desires before receiving the deals, plus their rationality after receiving the deals. These are tough things to measure. While the effort shows promise and indicates some type of engagement, it is indicative of most social media efforts thus far. Moving in the right direction but not quite to the point of completing the equation when it comes to ROI. Farhad Manjoo examines this same topic in his article “Does Social Media Have A Return On Investment?” while looking at a couple of other scenarios. I love social media and see it as having great potential. What I am merely saying is that its measurement metrics are still a work in progress. They are great indicators of engagement but do not directly tie social media and sales together yet. Foursquare’s American Express partnership is an example of social media in progress because it’s a mutually beneficial partnership, but measurement metrics have not advanced enough to measure its full effect.

Something else about social media that needs work, and this is more in the minority than the majority, are websites that develop methods of shaping their direction by offering rewards that do not tie in well with their identity. American Express works for Foursquare because Foursquare is all about rewarding check-ins with deals and getting customers to spend money. If they are spending money on their American Express, and getting unique deals because of that, well then it’s that much better. Wikipedia’s effort to gain more editors and develop a more loving vibe on the website seems ill-matched. Ben Parr talks about how Wikipedia is adding a love button so users can spread the love to reward good edits and updates on the site
http://on.mash.to/ljX27o
. While this seems like a positive idea, it’s the way they go about it that cheapens the experience. When users click on the heart button on a user page it brings up a ‘WikiLove menu’ that enables users to send things like kittens and beer to other users. First of all this sounds like a direct rip off of Facebook and their free gifts (which eventually had to be paid for in order to send them). Wikipedia’s effort seems very juvenile, it’s unoriginal, and it does not seem like a system that would attract the type of editors needed to improve its content. I do agree with their graph analysis that indicates something must be done about the negativity, but I do not think this is the way to go about it. This is an example of social media in progress because some sites are still developing their own identity. Ok, I’ll admit it. The title for this entry is a double entendre. While I have been discussing how social media is making strides, at the same time I am indicating that it is still a developing medium. I think that is an acknowledged fact and I don’t believe that anyone would say social media has arrived and has all of the answers yet. In time, I believe it will improve and paint a more complete picture of the effect it has now and will have in the future. Social media can be a useful tool, and will only increase in the analysis and development of measuring its ROI.